Despite my pro-assassination stance above, I do love to see local action. ("Local" meaning neighborhood and city level -- where people can actually make a difference.) I love the idea of people cleaning up their homes, lawns, neighborhoods, helping each other balance their checkbooks, teaching skills, and acting in quorum to solve bigger issues that one person simply cannot solve alone.

My anger, then, is really about the problems of doing all of this at the state/provincial or federal levels. Those levels are too big, too abstract and too slow to effectively respond on that basis. And yet that's where the discussion always seems to go.

I'm a liberal. Pretty left on most issues. I'd probably be called a filthy socialist with European ideas. Incredibly un-murican, I know. Its k though. If I had to associate with a political party it'd probably be the democrats.

I am actually really interested in politics (when it comes to the actual issues that is) and keep fairly informed and up to date on the majority of issues, but rarely discuss or debate it. I like to giggle when people regurgitate only the talking points (lol Fox News/MSNBC) as if they were informed (OMG elitist, I know, I'm sorry D:). I don't bother arguing with people though because the majority of the time they've made up their mind and they're going to pick and choose whatever set of facts/data/imagination/reality they want. Rationality is relative, and it'd be the equivalent of trying to convince a 5 year old that they don't need a night light because there isn't a monster in the closet or under the bed, and even if there was a monster, that night light wouldn't keep him/her any safer. To be fair though, there are positions I take based more on emotion and feeling despite the empirical data that cites otherwise or contradicts it. To each their own though.

I completely understand the sentiment though that people think politics its dumb, annoying, or worthless, because the majority of politics has turned into a silly circus fueled by the money of corporations and wealthy individuals to try to brand or paint the other party as some kind of negative image while maintaining theirs as some defender of justice. It'll probably be a generation before things get turned around though :/

I usually vote for a party rather than a specific candidate. I'm fine with not having anyone or any party to vote for with whom I'd agree with everything. It's enough that the general line of thought fits mine. In the previous parliamentary elections (here in Finland) I voted for the Left Coalition but I'm regretting this since my vote was strategical rather than genuine. Although TLC leans to the "left" the most amongst the parties in the parliament they are not anti-capitalist. In the next elections I'll probably be voting for the Communists in spite of their pathetic poll ratings.

My problem with parliamentary politics is that it doesn't allow for any radical politics proper. I was following panels during the last parliamentary elections here and they were depressing to watch. Nobody even dares to mention words like "capitalism" or "class" (let alone "working class"). Everybody agrees on the imperative of economic growth. Paraphrasing Slavoj Zizek, it's as if we have the basic rules of the game; let's just provide a little bit more welfare, tolerance and so on. The most radical vision the parliamentary left has here is that of "capitalism with a human face". Radical politics proper simply disappears. And during the last presidential elections here even the right/left opposition seemed to disappear (in favor of the right). We basically had two liberal-capitalist candidates. The main difference between them was that the first seemed to be more in favor of green and liberal values (he was also openly gay) and the other appealed more to the conservative population.

But on the other hand I see that the biggest problems of our time is more systemic than anything. Of course, parliamentary politics is corrupted* (although the situation here is not nearly as worse as in the US), but on the other hand the big problems of our time (crises of capitalism, global warming, inequality etc.) aren't going to be solved by parliamentary games alone. Here I am a traditional leftist in favor of revolutionary politics, which in my mind doesn't simply mean taking power but transforming or abolishing existing social institutions. How do we get there or how long this process is going to be is beyond me. I don't know.

*Although, to be fair, people's (mis)trust for politicians probably also fluctuates with general socio-economic conditions, irrespective of how corrupted or competent politicians actually are. This is my guess, I haven't really looked into this.

Brad wrote:According to http://www.ISideWith.com, I am 87% in line with the politics of Barack Obama, 86% with the Green party candidate, Jill Stein, and 36% with Mitt Romney.

Did this one a few days ago, scored 91% with Stein, 72% Obama, 56% Anderson (who?), 23% Paul (ugh), and 2% Romney (no surprise).

Funny thing is, if you poll people on an issue-by-issue basis without mentioning parties, the Green Party turns out to have the most popular platform.

Sukunai, Real Canadian Hero wrote:Note to any Muslims present. Abuse a female in my presence, and you are being sent to a hospital emergency ward with life threatening injuries. And no human law will make me change my mind.

trythil wrote:Why do you agree with his stance? I think his energy policy has some holes in it, especially with regard to his very strong assertions about the failure of wind and solar power generation.

I'm for becoming energy independent. I think this is probably the most crucial thing if we ever wanted to get back up on our feet. My dad can go on forever quite eloquently about the issue, but I tend to stumble over it all because I'm just scatterbrained when I'm trying to explain something verbally that is so complex as energy. It's a pretty tough issue, including climate and environment (which goes in with energy a lot), to lay down a solid stance on.

Here are some quotes from Romney's Energy Policy from the 23rd. I've yet to delve too much into it (God knows what other things could be in there) but it does a good job at the start of lining out its benefits:

*More than three million new jobs, including over one million in manufacturing;*An economic resurgence adding more than $500 billion to GDP;*A stronger dollar and a reduced trade deficit;*More than $1 trillion in revenue for federal, state, and local governments;*Lower energy prices for job creators and middle-class families; and*National security strengthened by freedom from dependence on foreign energy supplies.

His plan:

*Empower states to control onshore energy development;*Open offshore areas for energy development;*Pursue a North American Energy Partnership;*Ensure accurate assessment of energy resources;*Restore transparency and fairness to permitting and regulation; and*Facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies.

However, I'm quite aware of Romney's flip-flopping on the issue, especially concerning renewable energy. Believe it was in '07 that he was pretty green, liked the idea of solar and wind powered energy, and cap-and-trade. Now he's almost completely opposite. He's still for nuclear, bio-diesel, and ethanol however.

It would take many years to become energy independent on any politician's plan, including Romney's. However, energy independence is a stable idea and vital to the US, in my opinion.

@Kionon - I've been reading more about Gary Johnson after seeing him at the RNC, oddly enough. I tend to agree with most Libertarian policies and am particularly pleased with Johnson's take on foreign policy. Not as severe as Paul's take, which I favor, but still better than Romney. Nevertheless I think a good enough reason to vote for Johnson is so the Libertarian party gets those federal matching funds.

Shin-AMV wrote:I like to giggle when people regurgitate only the talking points (lol Fox News/MSNBC) as if they were informed (OMG elitist, I know, I'm sorry D:)..

Pretty much. Fox and MSN are probably the worst of them all as well. It's hard not to get a biased story, but if you're going to talk like you know a lot about it, you probably want to research it rather than just repeat the words of one main article.DrudgeReport really is my favorite though

Kionon wrote:Taite, you might look into Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate. He should be on the ballot in nearly every state. I think he was taken off the ballot in Oklahoma, but he should be on the ballot everywhere else. He's not perfectly in line with Ron Paul, but he's very, very close.

The cool thing about Gary Johnson is that he actually espouses libertarian social issues like marriage equality, states rights in regards to abortion, and civil liberties.

Unlike Ron Paul who supports the Defense of Marriage Act, wants to make abortion illegal at the federal level, and still opposes the Civil Rights Act.

Sukunai, Real Canadian Hero wrote:Note to any Muslims present. Abuse a female in my presence, and you are being sent to a hospital emergency ward with life threatening injuries. And no human law will make me change my mind.

Since Emong brought up Finish politics, I'll bring up my opinions on the other two political systems which directly affect me: Japan and Australia.

In the case of Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Japan are pretty much indistinguishable. I was here when Taro Aso's government collapsed and the DPJ took over to cries of major reform. That was... uh... four years ago. And the only thing I've seen the DPJ deliver on is a new residency management system which may or may not be good for foreign residents, and the five year visa, which makes longer term residency slightly easier. Economic policy is nearly identical, the LDP is actually better about remix culture and fandom issues (which is why Taro Aso was once claimed as the first Otaku prime minister--he's publicly acknowledged he's a Rozen Maiden fanboy), and Hatoyama failed in his one major promise to the Japanese electorate; move the Marine bases off Okinawa. I've seen five prime ministers in five years, and I can barely keep track of what makes any of them different. The lack of urgency concerning Japanese debt which is 200% GDP, economic growth at -2%, and the fact that projections predict a drop in population from 120 Million now to 48 million by 2050, with much of the population at or past retirement age, combined with nearly no true interest rates in the Japanese banking system, and overburdened (if high quality) medical and pension system gives me pause about staying here long term. And I can never get the vote, anyhow, because Japanese citizenship requires the relinquishing of US citizenship, which I won't do.

For Australia, I've been a big fan of Kevin Rudd. I am not so much a fan of Gillard, but I supported her (in as much as my general good wishes can be considered "support"), but ultimately was displeased when Rudd was unable to retake the premiership from her when he challenged her. I liked him better. However, I would say without going into great detail, unless the Aussies want to chime in, the Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party, and I am a democratic socialist, so it's largely unsurprising that in my research during the 2010 election, I found myself agreeing with Labor on the vast majority of issues. I point out that I spent time in Sydney and I visited Canberra, spending all day at Parliament House. I'm only beginning to research state and local politics, especially concerning Sydney's Lord Mayor, Ms. Moore, who is apparently a very polarising figure. I am seriously considering pursuing Australian permanent residency and citizenship in the very near future, and so this isn't just idle research on my part.

Actually I think this is a really good thread so far, thanks for keeping it civil guys. Especially with politics being so partisan (and that's not only a US trait), I'm really happy to see this thread being pretty darn civil and to the point. I think as much as people disagree and as much as some (including myself) might hold pretty strong social or political ideals, being able to talk about it in a civil manner is crucially important. As much as my views might be seen as radical, I'm not naive enough to think that I'm going to ever get "what I want" out of politics, and to a point where it's ethical, I think compromise is incredibly important.

So I took that ISideWith test and apparently I'm 82% Stein, 79% Johnson, 67% Obama, 52% Romney. In relative terms, that actually makes a fair bit of sense.

Also, http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is pretty handy if you're trying to articulate where the heck you stand. I've done this one a few times now, and over the years I've stuck consistently way the hell on the left, but it seems like as time goes on, I drift more and more towards the bottom (i.e. social libertarian) - though I still think that it's largely the questions and I'm actually more socially moderate than the graph might indicate. Right on economically, though.

The Birds are using humanity in order to throw something terrifying at this green pig. And then what happens to us all later, that’s simply not important to them…

trythil wrote:Why do you agree with his stance? I think his energy policy has some holes in it, especially with regard to his very strong assertions about the failure of wind and solar power generation.

I'm for becoming energy independent. I think this is probably the most crucial thing if we ever wanted to get back up on our feet. My dad can go on forever quite eloquently about the issue, but I tend to stumble over it all because I'm just scatterbrained when I'm trying to explain something verbally that is so complex as energy.

If that's your stance, then you can be in favor of Obama's energy platform, too, as he is also promising that result. No candidate is crazy (or realistic) enough to say "I'm going to gradually increase our reliance on domestic energy generation, but it'll be about a couple decades of hard work before we can totally do that". Both candidates promise regulatory reform: Romney for oil, natural gas, and nuclear power plants; Obama for fast-tracking offshore wind farms. (And probably others). In a sense, they're really pretty similar policies in the sense that they both

Spain’s experience, for example, reveals that each new “green” job created destroyed 2.2 others. The price tag in subsidies was exorbitant, rising to nearly $1.5 million per job in the wind industry. Even steeper job loss ratios can be found in the United Kingdom, where 3.7 jobs were lost for every new “green” job created. Here in the United States, despite the Obama administration’s wishes, the marketplace is simply not absorbing green-collar workers. Of 3,586 recent graduates of a Department of Labor-sponsored “green” jobs training program, only 466 were able to find jobs. Taxpayer money spent on “green” training, it seems, was wasted.

My first objection: Let's assume that's all true and that it actually applies to the United States of America. (That's a big logical leap that I'll address in a bit.) So what? Those lost jobs could be lost for good reasons: lower maintenance implying less need for people to work on those systems, for example.

The data point he inserts in that paragraph is also suspect. To me, it sounds like the Department of Labor-sponsored program produced graduates that sucked so hard that no company would want to take them on. Given the ineptitude of federal government in any sort of job preparation scheme, I find this to be the more probable cause.

But let's say that the Department of Labor did their job well and they produced 3,586 graduates that were all stellar job candidates. Well, okay. One thing we have to consider about this program is that the failure report was released in 2011; what sort of job-hiring environment existed then? How bad is the placement rate compared to, say, placement rate as a result of private-sector training? Is it a waste if it's achieving similar results? (The report doesn't answer those questions.)

===

Secondly, I find his assertions of wind and solar being a failure to be suspect. On wind and solar, Romney writes

To begin with, wind and solar power, two of the most ballyhooed forms of alternative fuel, remain sharply uncompetitive on their own with conventional resources such as oil and natural gas in most applications. Indeed, at current prices, these technologies make little sense for the consuming public but great sense only for the companies reaping profits from taxpayer subsidies.

I don't understand where he's getting that from. It's true that current usage of wind and solar power make for poor base load power generation systems: first off, you can't get power from those systems all the time; secondly, production solar cells are currently only about 10-15% efficient, so they require much more space to generate the same amount of energy as, say, a steam turbine driven by burning coal. It's therefore harder, at present, to use them to power a large number of clients. At present it does make sense to back up a wind and solar system with more stable systems, like hydro and nuclear. (Oil, natural gas, and coal can also be used, but I think of them as interim steps if you're really going for renewable energy.) That way, you can use wind and solar to initially handle peak loads and gradually transition more burden to them as they improve.

But I don't understand the "make little sense for the consuming public but great sense only for the companies reaping profits from taxpayer subsidies" bit. There's at least one supplier, SolarCity, which supplies solar power and battery storage systems to homeowners and companies. They're based in California; Wikipedia says they employ around 1,600 people. Sundog Solar is another such company. And they're both making money from both companies and individuals.

Solar may or may not make sense for an individual based on a lot of factors: exposure to sunlight, residential codes, individual energy consumption, and budget, to name a few. But the "taxpayer subsidies" bit, to me, seems like a bogeyman.

For wind power, I don't have much there, but I do know that Indiana seems to be doing pretty well with it. The Hoosier Wind Farm opened up in 2009 and has been doing well since, or at least I see it in operation every time I drive to Indianapolis. There's four other wind farms in Indiana, too.

Now all these cases may be exceptions, but I want to know what's going on with them that make them special. Can we replicate their success elsewhere? If not, are there other systems that aren't fossil-fuel based that could also work?

Romney answers none of these questions.

I would like to know if he sees any merit in providing federal funds and regulatory assistance to solar and wind installers with a proven track record of success. Such a loan system could work like the ATVM loan program, in which applicants had to demonstrate financial viability without the loan.

Maybe some more on his energy policy later.

Now, I do have to congratulate Romney for actually writing something and treating American voters like they can read. The oversized charts and bite-sized paragrams on Obama's website is patronizingly sickening.

Although there is a problem with this test, namely that the questions are formulated already in a way that dictates the answers. Besides, I tend to agree with the statement that there's no single difference between left and right; every definition of the difference between right and left is already itself "leftist" or "rightist". In the case of the left the difference is more often based on class struggle (or 99% vs. 1% in more popular terms) while in the case of the right the difference is more that of a harmonious social body vs. freeloaders, immigrants, jews, criminals etc.

Can you imagine one day painting your house and that paint provides you with a bit of your overall electricity via sunlight?

"The people cannot be [...] always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to [...] the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to public liberty. What country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned [...] that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson

Political Compass is an easy introduction to the political spectrum, especially since it does a decent job at illustrating the fact that "conservative" and "liberal" are not very well represented on a single axis. Beyond that, I do share the negative sentiment that the questions are too transparent, i.e. that it's really easy to game your responses and predict which quadrant you'll fall into.

That said, it's really depressing that nearly every politician from the big two parties who has run for US president recently falls into the first quadrant (the exception was Kucinich falling in the third quadrant, and I'm willing to bet Santorum belongs in the fourth). It really speaks volumes as to where the political center is compared to the rest of the first world. Looking at the 2012 presidential election chart, it's pretty cool of them to include Alexander, Anderson, and Stein. It's also really horrifying how close Obama and Romney are. In fact, if you look at their chart for 2008, just look at how deeply Obama's moved into the first quadrant.

God, I hate this country.

Sukunai, Real Canadian Hero wrote:Note to any Muslims present. Abuse a female in my presence, and you are being sent to a hospital emergency ward with life threatening injuries. And no human law will make me change my mind.